Most people who use cocaine (and other drugs) do not use it regularly, those who use it regularly do not become addicted and those who become addicted recover on their own. Sound outrageous? Citing several thorough sociological studies, this statement becomes more and more believable as you read this book.
I used to think that behavioral compulsions, like addictions to sex and food, were different from substance abuse. Surely shooting heroin involves a chemical dependency, whereas overeating or spending all your money on porn and peep shows is a sign of psychological escape, right? Some say that all such behaviors are biological, but that sounded preposterous to me. This book drove home the idea that ALL addiction, be it abusing credit cards or smoking crack cocaine, is a symptom of a life out of control, not the cause. The book clearly illustrates how people become addicted when their lives lack meaning and hope, during painful transitions, and when they don't have the life skills or coping skills to ride out the rough edges of life.
Why is smoking crack considered more addictive than sniffing powder? People who smoke crack are generally people who live in the desperation of the inner cities, so they have less *motivation* to overcome their addiction, not a stronger drug.
Any serious student of sociology or psychology should read this book
I've always disputed that things like sex, food, and shopping could be addictions, without denying that people can clearly go overboard with such things to ignore inner turmoil or avoid responsibilities they can't cope with, or because they lack relationship skills. Peele's view is that this characterizes *all* addiction, and treatment should involve learning coping, communication and interpersonal skills. The biggest controversy surrounding Peele, however, is his assertion that most people gain life skills naturally as they mature -- when people get jobs or find something they care for and have better things to do then get smashed -- making clinical treatment unnecessary for addictions in young people. He sites sociological studies that show that most drug users "mature out" of drug use, even if the drug use involved drug binges or other obvious addictive behavior.
Still think that some drugs are just more "addictive" than others? Is it the drug or the person taking them? What makes a person take a hard-hitting drug to begin with? I had never really thought before what it meant that crack was more "addictive" than cocaine. As crack is mostly consumed in poor, degraded environments leading most into dead-end lives, what motivation - what opportunity - does one have to put down the pipe get a life? This book makes a strong case for looking at environment, sociological and psychological factors in addiction, not brain chemistry.
This book also opened my eyes to what happens to people who don't go through therapy or drug treatment. I only looked at the statistics that evaluated people *in* treatment, not those who never went! When you consider how most therapy, especially the 12-steps do not address life skills and in fact hinder them with their rhetoric of powerlessness and doomed childhood, its not really a surprise that untreated people have the same or better outcome as people in treatment.